🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>> >There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you
>views
>> >as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.
>>
>> Wrong.  Anyone who doesn't share my views is either inferior or superior.
>But
>> nobody is my equal because there is nobody who shares my views because
>they are
>> unique to me, just as yours are unique to you.
>>
>
>No, you are wrong again.  Any measurement against another still means that
>you do care; 

Oh I see, you're attempting to portray my caring about my survival as a 
weakness.  I don't see it that way.  I exist, I live in a society, and I care 
about maximizing my potential within the reality I exist.  But I don't consider 
approaching every phenomena I encounter as a dunce (agnostic) who can't figure 
out what matters to him to be condusive to maximizing my potential.  That's why 
I find confident theists to be far less pathetic than so-called agnostics.  
>>  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
>>
>
>You're kidding, right?

No. You're kidding about "You're kidding, right?" being a refutation of my 
claim, right?


>
>> If you insist on taking an 'agnostic' position of 'not knowing', just how
>much
>> 'not knowing' are you prepared to accept?  Are you prepared to accept that
>the
>> moon might be made of cheese?  Or that you might be able to jump off a
>bridge
>> and fly?  If you are prepared to know that you can't jump off a bridge and
>fly,
>>  and that the moon isn't made of cheese, you're prepared to know that god
>> doesn't exist.
>>
>To the contrary.  I can accept things that I can never know.  I can know
>whether I can fly or not, and I can know whether the moon is made of green
>cheese.  What I can't know is whether God exists or whether He doesn't.

You also can't know whether god is in fact a large smurf who lives on the 
planet jupiter and smokes cosmic crack every day.  So does it make you feel 
like an 'open-minded', politically-correct kind of guy by accepting that as a 
'possibility'?  Because you are clinging to your beliefs because of how they 
make you feel, just like I am.


>And, as I said, I am more willing to accept that God does exist, than that
>God doesn't.  However, the nature of a God is something that escapes me.
>Consequently, I don't know.  You believe.  You don't know either.  I'm
>simply willing to admit it.

What you've been "simply willing to admit" is that you're not agnostic at all, 
you just think it's politically correct to pretend to be agnostic. Maybe you 
have a fetish for the word?  You just said "I'm more willing to accept that God 
doesn't exist than that God does".  That doesn't make you agnostic, it makes 
you a theist too weak and pathetic to claim his own belief!

What makes you so sure you're agnostic?  An agnostic shouldn't argue for 
agnosticism, since he claims to NOT KNOW if it's true.  And yet here you are 
insisting that agnosticism is based on the truest interpretation of reality.  
Isn't that because you think agnosticism protects your very tenuous faith?

 
>You're missing the point.  If cognition is finite, then it may limit life
>itself; which it doesn't.  People die for a variey of reasons.  I have never
>heard of anyone dying from overthinking.
>
>Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of brain
>activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that some
>consciousness originates elsewhere.

What evidence are you referring to?



> Even if you don't believe in a 'soul'
>or an afterlife, the body can react at fundamental levels to stimuli at a
>greater speed than the brain is capable of sensing, and then processing the
>information.  
>Given that, there is also considerable portions of cognition
>which defy any explanation at all. 

I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all', 
otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why 
should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or adequately, like 
consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on jupiter 
smoking cosmic crack?

> Also, the amount of information that we
>process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
>produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).

Wait a second.  I think I'm debating an idiot.

>> Was there something I said that struck you as 'immoral', or are you just
>> pontificating for its own sake?
>>
>>
>Exploiting other people for one's own gain is immoral in my view unless it
>is a mutually beneficial arrangement.
>
>

Oh, not in my opinion.  As far as morals go, everyone's got their own opinion.